9/11 “No-Planes” Perception Management Past & Present

By Mark Conlon – 15 Apr 2017

Edited by Andrew Johnson

In recent months, there has been a noticeable increase of material being removed by social media platforms such as YouTube and Facebook. In October 2016 Richard D. Hall Released his latest version of his ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis. Some months later YouTube decided to block the 3D Analysis video for some unknown reason? Strangely this week the video has been "unblocked" by YouTube, again for no apparent reason? Was this a timely decision in light of Richard D. Hall’s UK Tour, where no doubt Richard would’ve spoken about this? The video was still blocked as of the 1st April 2017 when I last checked it on his YouTube channel, just after the FBI released an alleged set of new 9/11 images from the Pentagon attack, which just happens to show plane wreckage after the alleged plane crash. 

In the 2012 version of Richard’s ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis, he made the case that the flight paths in each video matched up correctly in each of the 26 suitable videos (from the 50 available) videos that he analysed . (Suitable videos needed to show the plane’s path for long enough.) This demonstrated that the prevailing theory that the videos contained an ‘ inserted CGI Plane,’ was almost certainly incorrect. This seriously challenged the analyses put forward by two well known “no-plane” theorists and ‘video fakery’ promoters; Simon Shack and Ace Baker. 

This new evidence and hypothesis from Richard D. Hall’s 3D Radar Analysis findings met with great resistance from no-planes ‘video fakery’ researchers.

Why is the 3D Radar Analysis findings so dangerous…?

Videos of the WTC “plane impacts” show impossible crash physics (further discussion below) – including disappearing wings, impossible speed and damage not consistent with real plane crashes. Hence, the videos demonstrate that we was not seeing a ‘real’ plane in the videos. RDH’s analysis essentially shows this was not because of ‘video fakery’ – rather, it tends to confirm that some type of ‘image projection’ of a plane was captured in the videos. Is it then the case that this conclusion has had to be covered-up – in order to conceal the existence of an advance technology? Was ‘video fakery’ introduced as a clever cover story to help lead people away from the discovery of this advanced technology ‘image projection’ system, just like the "thermite" explanation which was introduced as a cover story by Steve E. Jones to cover-up the ‘real’ evidence of the destruction of the twin towers from an advanced directed energy weapon. Exposing ‘video fakery’ as a cover story makes Richard D. Hall’s findings so devastating to the cover-up of the advanced technology used to destroy the WTC and create a sophisticated cover up. I now consider the ‘video fakery’ explanation to be a “cover story”. This has led me to notice an attempt to promote the idea of planes on 9/11 when the evidence is to the contrary. An example of this was a recent release of images on 31st March 2017 by the FBI. The alleged “new images” of the 9/11 event at the Pentagon include 3 of plane wreckage. This release may have therefore been because questions being continually asked about the lack of physical evidence of planes at all 4 crash sites on 9/11. 



Out of the 16 images released, 3 show plane wreckage which is allegedly from ‘Flight 77’ at the Pentagon crash site.

Perception Management:

Is this the subtle promotion in this news headline to reinforce the idea that planes crashed on 9/11..?



Daily Mail Online Article Below:

Note: In the online Yahoo article they have ordered the set of 16 images starting with 3 images of the plane’s (Flight 77) alleged wreckage.

In Thierry Meyssan’s 2002 book called Pentagate, Meyssan states that the attack on the Pentagon was not carried out by a commercial airliner but a missile. The central thesis of the book is that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon. This conclusion was heavily criticised by other prominent 9/11 Truth Movement members such as Jim Hoffman (himself a supporter of Steven E Jones).


It is my opinion that Meyssan’s astute observations of “no-plane” at the Pentagon event also led to early observations of no-planes at the crashes in New York, which then led to the introduction of a clever "psychological operation" called ‘video fakery’ to conceal what really happened.   

Thierry Meyssan also challenged the idea that piece of wreckage shown in the 2 out the 3 images released by the FBI above, came from the alleged airplane (Flight 77). Meyssan concluded it was more likely to have been planted debris wreckage from another plane because the piece of wreckage did not match any part of an American Airlines plane.

Image from Thierry Meyssan’s book Pentagate – Page XVI



Meyssan stated that the piece of wreckage in this image does not match any piece of a Boeing 757-200 painted in the colours of American Airlines. He also mentions, that this wreckage was never inventoried by the Department of Defence as coming from Flight 77.

 Is the release of these new images a subtle attempt to promote and reinforce the idea of planes being involved in the 9/11 attacks because of the growing doubts by many people regarding of the lack of evidence of planes at all 4 crash sites on 9/11…?

See the new images at this Yahoo news link below:

Perception Management: Cover-ups, Muddle-ups and Psychological Operations:

The video evidence of ‘Flight 175’ allegedly impacting the South tower demonstrates a contradiction of Newton’s 3rd Law, as if there’s no rea; collision between the South tower and the plane. Also contained in the videos are some very strange anomalies regarding the disappearance of the plane’s wings as it approaches the South tower before impact. 


 It must be ‘video fakery’ and ‘CGI planes’…? REALLY, or something else..?


From my own research which I have conducted into the September Clues film and the explanations proposed within it to explain the anomalies, which I have written about and posted here on my blog, I have proved that many of the points that Simon Shack makes are without doubt incorrect at best, and deliberately misleading at worst, and appears that the ‘video fakery’ idea was put-out deliberately as a psychological operation (psy-op) to lead people away from studying the video and photographic evidence.  Thus, ‘video fakery’ has been used as a cover story to conceal the use of some type of advanced ‘image projection’ technology to put an image of a plane in the sky, an image  which was then videoed and photographed by many eye witnesses. This explains why the ‘crash physics’ was not consistent with a ‘real’ plane colliding and crashing into a steel and concrete building and also the impossible speed which the plane was travelling at as it approached the South tower in the videos. 

September Clues, Perception Management..?


Another point which has been observed in my analysis of the September Clues film surrounding ‘video fakery’ is that Simon Shack makes false claims about certain videos such as the Pavel Hlava video, where in one example he claims it was a "re-edit" of the  Michael Hezarkhani video footage, which is provable disinformation, deliberately put out by Simon Shack to promote ‘video fakery’ and to also to discredit both videos as fake. That seems to be the main objective – to cast doubts regarding the video record of the plane crashes. Again, I suggest this is done to conceal the advanced technology ‘image projection’ that was used. 

Read my blog article demonstrating Simon Shack’s false claims about the Micael Hezarkhani video and the Pavel Hlava video. Link below:

The films and the prominent ‘video fakery’ so-called researchers did a good job, as I didn’t check their theories/hypothesis and I took it for granted for over 6 years that they had given me all the correct answers to the anomalies which I observed such as, no crash physics and disappearing wings in the videos, thus believing ‘CGI planes’ were inserted or composited into the videos which led me to believe all the videos and photographs were faked. 

How wrong I was when I did eventually check their claims which turned out to be grossly incorrect . Initially, I thought this was because they had made genuine errors in their research but soon, I could see an emerging theme and behaviour pattern of deliberate, deceptive means of clever misdirection and editing to falsely promote to the viewers a false answer to all the anomalies in the videos. 

I now consider ‘video fakery’ to be a psy-op in itself. Perhaps this answers why the latest set of FBI images have been released as part of the perception management, as more people are starting to see that ‘video fakery’ doesn’t sufficiently answer all the questions surrounding the anomalies captured within the videos. Simon Shack is concealing the truth instead of exposing it along with managing people’s perceptions. 

Perhaps this is why recently, the censorship and perception management of any discussion of the no-planes evidence on 9/11 has been stepped-up, so I consider this timely release of these FBI images showing the plane wreckage at the Pentagon to be “damage control and perception management” because of the failings in their psychological operation cover story that is ‘video fakery’. 

To find out more about Simon Shack (Hytten), please read Andrew Johnson’s research article here: 9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175 – www.checktheevidence… 

Related articles...

Comments are closed.